In my quest to get out more in the blogosphere, I read a recent post in the WSJ Law Blog about Women Litigators and their Courtroom Footwear Dilemma. The question posed – if a woman litigator “appeared before an 80-year-old male judge in something actually comfortable, not to mention a jury, would you be doing your clients a disservice?” As someone who makes my livelihood studying how jurors respond to lawyers (and also a shoe fan), the post
and more than fifty subsequent comments struck a nerve. The conversation even held my interest. That is until two weeks ago when I walked into a federal courtroom and saw a woman who defied all conventional wisdom.
This was much more radical than a pantyhose or no pantyhose debate…let me paint the picture of what I saw.
The subject of this pondering was a smart as a whip, female attorney whose daily attire was a men’s dress shirt, men’s suit, men’s belt and men’s shoes. She was clearly wearing men’s clothing – this was not a case of a preference for men’s styling. Her clothes were men’s clothes tailored to fit her perfectly. (I know – I am an expert shopper.) She wore very small earrings and a large ring on her left hand that resembled a college class ring. Her hair was slicked back into a ponytail and appeared to wear no makeup. For more than two weeks, this attorney maintained the same unwavering image in front of a jury of housewives, accountants, bookkeepers and teachers.
So let’s open the discussion shall we? Let’s first assume this isn’t about sexual orientation at all – let’s take that completely off the table. The question for me is why someone would deliberately choose to depart from conventional expectations of dress. Expectation theory suggests straying from societal norms would be risky behavior and could damage her credibility with the audience. In trial, the stakes are high – a lawyer’s credibility and persuasiveness are of upmost importance and can be the difference between a victory and a loss.
So, my question to the group – have you seen this before in your workplace? If so, do you agree with the experts that a strategy this far from the “norm” is a burden you probably don’t want to bear?
and more than fifty subsequent comments struck a nerve. The conversation even held my interest. That is until two weeks ago when I walked into a federal courtroom and saw a woman who defied all conventional wisdom.This was much more radical than a pantyhose or no pantyhose debate…let me paint the picture of what I saw.
The subject of this pondering was a smart as a whip, female attorney whose daily attire was a men’s dress shirt, men’s suit, men’s belt and men’s shoes. She was clearly wearing men’s clothing – this was not a case of a preference for men’s styling. Her clothes were men’s clothes tailored to fit her perfectly. (I know – I am an expert shopper.) She wore very small earrings and a large ring on her left hand that resembled a college class ring. Her hair was slicked back into a ponytail and appeared to wear no makeup. For more than two weeks, this attorney maintained the same unwavering image in front of a jury of housewives, accountants, bookkeepers and teachers.
So let’s open the discussion shall we? Let’s first assume this isn’t about sexual orientation at all – let’s take that completely off the table. The question for me is why someone would deliberately choose to depart from conventional expectations of dress. Expectation theory suggests straying from societal norms would be risky behavior and could damage her credibility with the audience. In trial, the stakes are high – a lawyer’s credibility and persuasiveness are of upmost importance and can be the difference between a victory and a loss.
So, my question to the group – have you seen this before in your workplace? If so, do you agree with the experts that a strategy this far from the “norm” is a burden you probably don’t want to bear?
Posts
